Well, I think the right answer on what the Constitution has to do with it is NOTHING. But Dolan is making any argument he can come up with. They're claiming that it's a violation of First Amendment religious freedom (they have a firm believe brain death is not true death) and the rights to privacy. Privacy is a weird one because it's implied, not explicit, so it's sort of read into other rights. I believe their argument was that it was a privacy right to make medical decisions regarding Jahi. I'm not sure how they're making religious freedom a federal issue, though. The statute on death is a state one and there's isn't a federal act declaring death, it's a state matter. So it shouldn't be strict scrutiny, but rather rational basis. I'm sure he has some reason in his mind for it, but personally I'm not seeing it.
The really absurd part of this is that as a legally deceased person, technically Jahi has no more standing, and the family can't bring claims on her behalf, only on their own. Doesn't seem like any of the courts are acknowledging that or dealing with that major major issue.
